r*1^! 


Mee.de  C .Williams 


m 


A  Glance 

et  the 

Higher  Criticism 


BS500 
W72 


U j   N 


A  Glance 

at  the 

Higher  Criticism 

■  -  '■  '■  •■-    •    •     ..           '  •  •        •';'••' 
By 

Meade  C.  Williams,  D.  D. 

19  0  4 

The  Winona   Publishing  Company 

Chicago 

»w 


Wartield  L-iorary 


A    GLANCE 


AT    THE 


HIGHER    CRITICISM 


/ 


BY 


MEADE   C.  WILLIAMS,   D.D 


CHICAGO,    ILL. 
THE    WINONA    PUBLISHING    COMPANY 


I 


COPYRIGHT,    1904 

BY 

THE    WINONA    PUBLISHING    COMPANY 


A    GLANCE 

AT   THE 

HIGHER    CRITICISM 


My  object  is  not  so  much  to  controvert,  as  to  briefly 
set  forth  the  nature  of,  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  to 
present  what  it  to-day  deems  its  assured  results.  The 
general  reader  will  better  understand  what  it  is  by  con- 
sidering the  demands  it  makes  on  our  acceptance.  We 
will  let  these  demands  speak  for  themselves. 

The  term  Higher  Criticism  does  not  carry  its  mean- 
ing on  its  face.  It  is  a  technical  term,  and  somewhat 
arbitrary  as  a  designation.  The  word  "criticism,"  as 
applied  to  the  Scriptures,  perhaps  to  some  suggests 
hostility  and  opposition.  But  that  sense  of  the  word 
is  secondary.  Criticism  strictly  means  discerning, 
hence  inquiry  and  ascertainment.  Biblical  criticism 
is  the  due  weighing  of  the  questions  which  pertain,  not 
so  much  to  the  interpretation  of  the  contents  of  Scrip- 
ture (that  is  Biblical  exegesis)  as  to  the  external  form 
and  vehicle  which  brings  these  contents.  Hence, 
Biblical  criticism  is  an  entirely  legitimate  thing.  It 
has  always  been  included  in  the  curriculum  of  studies 
in  all  our  best  theological  seminaries.  While  there  is 
rationalistic  criticism  and  destructive  criticism,  there 
is  also  believing  and  reverent  criticism. 

This  external  form  of  Biblical  study  is  of.  two  depart- 
ments: (i)  The  question  of  text — that  is,  the  ascer- 
tainment of  the  correct  Hebrew  and  Greek  originals. 
(2)  The  questions  of  authorship,  date,  structure,  scope, 
place  in  the  progressive  series  of  books,  etc.  The  Ger- 
man scholars,  about  one  hundred  years  ago,  distin- 
guished between  these  two  departments  by  calling  them 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 


respectively  "Lower  Criticism"  and  "Higher  Criticism." 
The  investigation  of  early  manuscripts,  the  study  of 
early  versions,  and  the  Scripture  citations  in  the  writings 
of  the  Early  Fathers,  with  the  view  of  ascertaining  the 
true  text — which  with  us  has  generally  been  called 
textual  criticism — this  they  called  "Lower  Criticism." 
The  other  line  of  study,  that  is,  authorship,  time  of 
composition,  style  of  writing,  historical  setting,  etc. — 
work  pertaining  to  the  contents  of  the  books,  and  thus 
a  higher  study  than  that  of  the  text,  which  only  con- 
veys the  contents — this  was  called  "Higher  Criticism." 
Or,  as  some  would  understand  the  rationale  of  the 
terms,  one  was  called  lower  inasmuch  as  the  text  of  a 
book  is  the  substratum,  while  the  other  is  known  as 
higher  as  being  that  which  grows  out  of  or  upon  the 
text. 

Now,  such  studies  are  not  only  legitimate,  but  profit- 
able. And  Higher  Criticism,  as  far  as  the  term  goes, 
and  in  its  historical  sense,  is  proper  and  needful.  Dis- 
associated from  certain  methods  and  perilous  prin- 
ciples and  certain  alleged  results,  it  would  create  no 
alarm.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has  come  to-day  to 
stand  for  a  particular  system  and  method  and  spirit, 
which  is  revolutionary  in  the  whole  standpoint  of  view- 
ing the  Scriptures.  It  has  gone  beyond  its  legitimate 
scope,  and  is  made  to  include  such  methods  in  its  work 
as  imagination,  inferences,  conjecture,  the  psychological 
sense,  and  especially  the  philosophy  of  development, 
or  evolution.  It  shows  its  ulterior  aim,  likewise,  by 
invading  the  field  of  theology,  so  that  many  who  have 
but  a  dim  understanding  of  what  is  meant  by  Higher 
Criticism  conceive  of  the  work,  as  it  is  now  pressed,  as 
pertaining  chiefly  to  the  system  of  doctrine.  And  this 
is  only  a  natural  inference  of  the  popular  mind.  The 
critics  are  not  content  with  making  certain  judgments 
relative  to  the  age,  the  structure,  and  authorship  of  the 
Biblical  books.     They  seek  an  end  beyond  that.     The 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 


whole  theological  creed  must  likewise  be  delivered  from 
"traditionalism."  Prof.  Cheyne  expresses  the  hope 
that  through  criticism  a  transformation  in  the  theology 
of  the  church  may  be  effected;  and  Dr.  Briggs  con- 
fessed, many  years  ago,  that  the  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  Bible  had  "brought  about  in  his  mind  a  different 
conception  in  every  department  of  theology." 

The  most  authoritative  and  most  representative 
exponents  of  the  new  criticism  are  of  the  rationalistic 
school,  and  they  do  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  to  those  we 
call  sacred  writers,  who  claim  to  speak  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  and  as  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  mistakes 
ignorance,  blunders,  fraudulent  methods,  and  some- 
times deceit.  As  Justice  Brewer,  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court,  recently  said,  speaking  of  the  icono- 
clastic critic  of  the  day:  "To  him  the  Bible  appears 
merely  as  a  sort  of  crazy  quilt  of  untrue  history,  dis- 
torted science,  weak  poetry,  impractical  morality  and 
vague  foreshadowings  of  the  unknown  and  unknowable." 
The  setting  of  the  different  books,  their  unit  character, 
their  place  in  the  historical  development  of  the  people, 
and  their  relation  to  the  periods  when  the  different 
religious  and  ethical  teachings  were  given — that  these 
are  not  at  all  as  they  seem.  Of  many  of  the  books  it  is 
claimed  they  are  but  patchwork  and  conglomerates, 
fragments  by  different  writers  of  far  separated  times 
pieced  together,  and  although  finally  brought  under 
the  supervising  and  editing  hand  of  some  redactor,  or  a 
succession  of  redactors,  yet  often  very  awkwardly  done. 
In  what  they  consider  the  work  of  "rightly  dividing  the 
word  of  truth,"  they  claim  ability  to  discriminate  in  the 
authorship,  not  only  of  different  parts  of  a  book,  but  of 
a  chapter,  and  of  a  single  verse  or  sentence  even;  and 
in  a  fine  critical  sense,  and  nicety  of  distinction,  they 
assign  to  different  imaginary  writers  "each  his  portion 
in  due  season"  through  the  centuries  of  Jewish  history. 
These  unknown  writers  they  designate  as  the  Jehovist, 


A   Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism 


the  Elohist,  the  Priestly  writer,  the  Deuteronomist,  and 
the  Redactor,  first,  second  or  third,  as  the  case  may  be. 
It  may  be  likened  to  the  printer  after  he  takes  the 
type  off  the  press,  distributing  it  into  the  different 
boxes  of  his  case;*  or  to  the  analytical  chemist,  with 
his  retort  resolving  a  substance  into  its  original  elements. 
And  just  as  the  chemist  designates  his  hydrogen,  oxygen, 
nitrogen,  carbon,  etc. ,  by  the  standard  initials,  H,  O,  N  and 
C,  and  sometimes  also  makes  the  compounds  HO,  HN, 
etc.,  so  the  critic  likewise,  as  he  disintegrates  the  early 
Scriptures  and  resolves  them  back  to  their  "last  reduc- 
tion," has  his  cabalistic  letters,  E,  J,  P,  D,  and  R,  and 
his  combinations,  too,  JE,  JP,  R2,  R3,  etc.,  etc. 

The  criticism  at  work  to-day  is  a  philosophy,  as  well 
as  a  study  of  Bible  structure.  Evolution  is  the  basic 
concept.  I  do  not  say  all  their  views  of  Scripture 
questions  are  determined  by  that  philosophy,  but  that 
it  regulates,  and,  shall  I  say,  often  biases  their  investiga- 
tions. It  rules  out  the  direct  and  special  interposition 
of  God  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and  allows  only  the 
factor  of  naturalism,  or,  what  they  would  call  a  "normal 
human  development."  It  is  true,  some  of  the  critics, 
or,  perhaps  many  of  them,  use  the  word  "supernatural," 
and  will  even  insist  on  it.  But  all  depends  on  the 
definition  of  that  term.  And  when  you  find  that  many 
of  them  mean  by  it  but  little  more  than  simply  a  theistic 
conception  of  the  universe,  that  God's  hand  is  in  human 
history,  and  that  an  intelligent  and  active  providence 
directs  all  things — this,  as  in  contrast  with  a  blind, 
unintelligent,  and  merely  natural  order  of  things — 
you  realize  that  the  word  with  them  comes  far  short 
of  the  signification  which  usually  attaches  to  it  in  re- 
ligious thought. 


*  Or,  perhaps,  it  might  be  better  illustrated — from  the  critic's  view-point — by  an  un- 
fortunate "pieing"  of  the  type  and  he,  like  the  printer,  having  to  properly  assort. 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 


II. 

There  are  those  in  the  Church,  good  men  and  often 
conspicuous  in  position  and  service,  who  refuse  to  see 
that  any  interest  is  endangered  by  the  present  phase 
of  Biblical  criticism.  In  a  supine  and  easy-going 
optimism  they  fancy  the  issue  now  forced  upon  us  is  a 
small  matter,  and  of  but  passing  moment.  Their  only 
conception  of  the  question  seems  to  be  whether  Moses 
was  the  actual  writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  whether  David 
wrote  all  the  Psalms,  and  whether  there  was  one  Isaiah 
or  two.  And  their  thought  is,  Why  vex  ourselves 
over  problems  so  inconsequential?  Since  we  have 
those  books,  and  can  read  them  just  the  same,  the 
question  of  their  authorship  should  not  be  allowed  to 
disturb  practical  Christian  men. 

Need  I  say  this  is  but  the  merest  fringe  of  the  sub- 
ject? It  is  an  utterly  superficial  judgment,  and  is 
unworthy  of  any  who  presume  to  be  public  teachers 
or  observers  of  the  current  Biblical  thought.  If  Moses, 
under  divine  direction,  may  have  compiled  from  earlier 
sources,  and  incorporated  in  his  records  certain  docu- 
ments of  different  writers  with  varying  styles  of  com- 
position; or  if  occasional  addenda,  of  the  nature  of  foot- 
notes or  parenthical  sections  or  appendices,  were  after- 
wards inserted  by  those  authorized  to  deal  with  the 
oracles  of  God;  or  even  if  Moses'  authorship  were  still 
further  reduced  in  slight  particulars — if  this  were  all 
the  critics  meant,  the  issue  would  not  be  so  serious. 
The  same  might  be  said,  were  there  necessity  for  it,  in 
regard  to  the  claim  that  two  or  more  writers  figure  in 
the  Book  of  Isaiah.  But  it  is  puerile  to  thus  belittle 
the  issue.  The  critic's  contention  is  not  so  simple.  It 
is  the  question  of  trustworthiness,  and  the  ques- 
tion of  period  or  time  when  these  writings  appeared, 
more  than   the   question   of   their   authorship.      It    is 


8  A   Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism 

whether  or  no  these  writings  of  the  Pentateuch,  for 
instance,  are  (ist)  a  credible  record  as  to  characters 
who  figure  on  their  pages,  as  to  representations  they 
make  of  God,  and  as  to  facts  and  events  which 
they  relate  as  history;  and  (2d)  whether  they  are, 
as  they  purport  to  be,  a  record  substantially  con- 
temporary of  a  revelation  made  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
and  during  his  leadership — in  other  words,  whether  or 
no  we  have  therein  an  authoritative  revelation  at  all. 

It  has  often  been  declared  by  some  of  the  disciples 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  it  has  made  the  Bible  a 
new  book.  In  one  sense  at  least  we  can  admit  this 
claim.  In  its  reconstruction  of  the  book  the  order 
and  arrangement  of  the  writings  is  all  changed,  and 
apparently  after  the  method  of  '  'topsy  turvy . ' '  It  is  as  if 
when  gazing  at  a  particular  formation  in  a  kaleidoscopic 
glass  the  critic's  hand  gives  it  a  turn  and  the  whole 
arrangement  is  instantly  changed.  The  Pentateuch 
is  disrupted  into  many  fragments,  which  in  their  author- 
ship are  scattered  over  a  period  of  four  centuries,  the 
earliest  date  in  which  was  several  hundred  years  after 
Moses'  time.  Isaiah  is  broken  up  into  what  has  been 
called  an  "anthology  of  collected  prophetic  utterances,' 
and  generously  distributed  through  two  hundred 
years,  though  in  the  main  ascribed  to  two  writers — 
Isaiah  proper,  and  the  unknown  or  second  Isaiah, 
with  a  century  and  a  half  between  them.  To  the 
plain  reader,  the  Old  Testament  appears  as  a  unified, 
coherent  and  progressive  course  of  revelation,  each  book 
having  its  own  character  and  its  own  purpose.  But 
by  the  Critic  very  much  of  it  is  regarded  as  a  confused 
unorderly  jumble  of  writings  and  fragments  of  writings, 
which  it  is  his  province  to  overhaul  and  "sort  out" 
and  readjust.  Often  they  report  chapters  in  the  same 
book,  and  verses  in  the  same  chapter,  and  even  sen- 
tences in  the  same  verse,  lying  as  strange  bed-fellows 
and  "unequally  yoked  together,"  which  they  must  bring 


A   Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism 


into  orderly  sequence.  Or  again,  it  is  to  them  like 
Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  bones  lying  in  a  miscellaneous 
heap,  and  theirs  it  is,  by  the  wand  of  criticism,  to 
bring  them  together,  "bone  to  his  bone." 

As  presenting  a  bird's-eye  view,  from  their  stand- 
point, of  the  time  and  the  order  in  which  the  books, 
and  the  several  portions  of  the  divisible  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  were  written,  we  have  the  following 
schedule.  It  has  been  indorsed  by  Dr.  Harper's  maga- 
zine as  constructed  according  to  the  "true  canons  of 
historical  and  literary  criticism."  The  first  portion 
of  Scripture,  according  to  this  outline,  and  the  only 
part  written  before  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy, 
is  the  Song  of  Deborah,  found  in  the  Book  of  Judges. 
We  have  nothing  more  until  the  period  of  the  Kings, 
when  David's  Song  of  the  Bow  appears,  and  a  small 
fragment  of  two  verses  of  Solomon's  prayer  at  the  dedi- 
cation of  the  Temple.  The  next  bit  of  our  Scriptures 
did  not  appear  until  after  the  kingdom  was  divided, 
when  the  "so-called  blessing  of  Jacob"  (Gen.  xlix.), 
and  the  Book  of  Covenant  (Exod.  xx.-xxiii.)  were 
composed.  Then  come  portions  of  Judges  and  Samuel, 
and  accounts  concerning  Elijah  and  Elisha.  Between 
the  times  of  King  Jehosaphat  and  Hezekiah,  a  period 
say,  of  150  years,  appeared  portions  of  Isaiah,  some 
of  the  Minor  prophets  and  the  historical  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  which,  however,  at  subsequent  periods, 
down  as  late  as  the  fourth  century  B.  C,  were  more  or  less 
revised.  During  this  general  period,  too,  some  unknown 
poet  wrote  the  "so-called  blessing  of  Moses"  (Deut. 
xxxiii.)  several  centuries  after  Moses'  death,  and  called 
his,  as  Prof.  Cheyne  explains,  only  as  it  is  "what  would 
have  been  his  last  words  if  he  had  lived  in  that  day"! 
In  the  time  of  King  Josiah  our  Deuteronomy  (or,  all 
but  a  few  chapters  of  it)  appeared;  also  the  Song  of 
Hannah.  Several  different  writers  had  a  hand  in 
what   is   known   as   the   prophecy   of    Isaiah,    although 


10  A   Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 

the  great  part  of  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  two — the 
prophet  Isaiah  himself  and  the  Deutero-Isaiah,  or 
"the  great  Unknown"  as  he  is  also  called.  The  elaborate 
ritual  system,  as  we  have  it  in  Leviticus  and  in  parts 
of  Exodus  and  Numbers,  was  not  written  until  after 
the  Exile.  The  composition  of  the  earliest  Psalm  is 
put  in  Jeremiah's  day,  while  the  most  of  them  do  not 
appear  until  after  the  return  from  Babylon,  and  some 
of  them  as  late  as  the  Maccabean  age.  The  Book  of 
Daniel  is  assigned  to  a  period  as  far  along  as  164  B.  C. 

III. 

The  controversy  raised  by  the  Higher  Criticism  began 
with  the  Pentateuch,  though  it  has  gone  far  beyond 
that  now.  (With  these  five  books  there  has  more  re- 
cently been  joined  the  book  of  Joshua,  as  pertaining 
to  the  same  general  period  which  preceded  the  settle- 
ment in  Canaan,  and  in  the  Critic's  terminology  Hexa- 
teuch  has,  to  a  degree,  superseded  Pentateuch.)  The 
controversy  arose  in  this  way : 

The  Pentateuch  relates  the  formation  of  what  is 
known  as  the  three  codes  of  Israel.  They  are  repre- 
sented in  these  books  as  given  successively  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  all  of  them  through  the  instrumentality 
of  Moses.  The  Critics  change  all  this,  and  bring  them 
along  at  three  different  stages,  widely  remote  from 
each  other,  and  extending  over  a  period  of  more  than 
a  thousand  years. 

1.  There  is  what  is  known  as  the  Covenant  Code. 
This  is  found  about  the  middle  of  the  book  of  Exodus, 
containing  the  decalogue  with  certain  regulations  per- 
taining to  the  civil  and  domestic  life  of  the  people 
and  other  miscellany  of  a  simple  kind. 

According  to  the  Critics'  theory  respecting  the 
chronological  appearance  of  the  Old  Testament  writings 
(as  we  saw  above),  the  Song  of  Deborah,  found  in  the 


A   Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism  11 

book  of  Judges,  was  the  earliest  production  to  appear 
in  its  present  literary  form.  This  brief  "Covenant 
Code"  they  ascribe  to  Moses,  but  not  in  its  present 
form.  The  Ten  Commandments,  for  instance,  as  they 
tell  us,  were  greatly  amplified  at  a  later  day — they 
being  in  their  first  promulgation  a  simple  declaration, 
each  of  but  a  single  sentence.  So  the  Covenant  Code, 
while  ascribed  to  Moses,  was  his  but  in  the  germ — a 
"tincture"  of  Moses,  as  the  druggist  would  say.  And 
this  is  the  extent  of  his  literary  work.  With  the  re- 
maining 183  chapters,  which  make  up  what  is  popularly 
called  the  five  books  of  Moses,  he  had  nothing  to  do, 
whether  as  author,  or  compiler,  or  editor  of  earlier 
annals.  And  not  only  is  their  authorship  wrested 
from  him — if  that  were  all,  the  case  would  not  be  so 
serious — but  it  is  wrested  from  his  age,  and  from  that 
whole  initial  period  of  Israel's  history,  and  assigned  to 
periods  800  and  1,000  years  after  Moses,  and  attributed 
to  unknown  writers,  of  whom  there  is  not  a  shred  of 
historical  record  or  Jewish  tradition — writers  purely 
supposititious  and  imaginary.  It  is  thus  made  nec- 
essary to  revise  our  conceptions  of  the  man  who  has 
always  been  known  as  the  Hebrew  Lawgiver,  and  the 
chief  of  the  sacred  writers.  But,  as  no  one  ever  knew 
of  Moses'  sepulcher,  so,  according  to  the  new  teaching, 
if  he  left  any  writings,  "no  man  knoweth  of  it  until 
this  day,"  and  we  are  forced  to  exclaim,  as  the  people 
once  did  to  Aaron,  "As  for  this  Moses  we  wot  not  what 
has  become  of  him." 

The  second  Code  is  called  the  Deuteronomic,  because 
found  in  the  book  of  that  name,  popularly  known  as 
the  fifth  book  of  Moses.  Here  I  recite  some  familiar 
Old  Testament  history.  Toward  the  close  of  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  we  read  that  "when  Moses  had  made 
an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  until  they  were 
finished,"  he  commanded  the  Levites  to  put  it  in  the 
side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  that  it  might  be  there 


12  A   Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 

for  a  witness  against  the  people.  After  the  temple 
was  built  under  Solomon,  this  together  with  other 
articles  of  sacred  deposit,  were  presumably  placed 
there.  Eight  hundred  years  passed  away,  and  we 
are  in  the  reign  of  King  Josiah  of  Judah.  Idolatry  and 
the  worship  of  the  high  places  had  been  prevailing. 
The  law,  as  a  whole,  was  largely  forgotten  among  the 
people.  Even  to  good  King  Josiah  much  of  it  was 
unknown.  The  temple  copy  which  Moses,  hundreds  of 
years  before  had  ordered  to  be  put  in  the  ark,  was  lost. 
Josiah  was  having  repairs  made  in  the  temple,  under 
charge  of  Hilkiah  the  High  Priest.  One  day  the  king 
sent  Shaphan,  the  scribe,  a  member  of  his  cabinet,  on  a 
commission  to  the  temple  in  connection  with  the  re- 
pairing work  then  under  way.  After  the  business  was 
finished  Hilkiah,  the  priest,  takes  occasion  to  tell  Shap- 
han of  a  wonderful  discovery  he  has  made  while  the 
repairs  were  going  on.  "I  have  found,"  he  said,  "the 
book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  and  he  gave 
it  to  him  to  read.  Shaphan  took  it  to  the  king  and 
read  it  to  him.  The  king  was  overwhelmed  in  aston- 
ishment, and  terror  and  grief,  for  in  the  book  of  the 
sacred  law  he  learns  of  provisions  and  requirements 
in  the  matters  of  public  religion,  and  of  divine  threat  - 
enings  in  case  of  their  neglect,  which  he  had  not  known 
of  before,  and  which  the  nation  had  long  been  violating, 
fie  rends  his  clothes  in  his  lamentation,  and  immediately 
proceeds  to  measures  of  religious  reformation  through- 
out the  kingdom. 

Now  this  is  the  Scripture  account,  and  it  seems  a  very 
plain  and  credible  narrative.  But  our  friends,  the 
Critics,  will  not  have  it  so.  They  assume,  to  begin 
with,  that  this  was  not  the  whole  law,  but  only  those 
portions  contained  in  Deuteronomy.  (This  question 
we  will  not  pause  to  consider.)  They  cannot  allow 
that  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  Moses'  time.  That 
early  age  was  not  capable  of  a  literary  production  of 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism  13 

that  kind.  Let  us  then  hear  their  story  about  it. 
Their  story  runs  thus:  In  the  corruption  and  degen- 
eracy of  the  times,  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  people, 
both  priests  and  nobles,  desired  to  improve  the  public 
condition.  In  those  days  the  end  justified  the  means, 
and  a  pious  fraud  was  resorted  to.  As  yet  they  had 
in  written  form  only  the  small  Covenant  Code  of  Moses. 
They  thought  if  they  had  more  law  code  it  would  greatly 
help  in  the  work  of  reformation.  But  to  be  author- 
itative, it  must  be  supposed  to  carry  a  divine  sanction, 
and  to  have  come  through  an  accredited  servant  and 
minister  of  the  Lord.  Whose  name  could  be  associated 
with  it  so  suitably  as  that  of  Moses,  who,  under  God, 
had  led  the  people  from  Egypt,  and  had  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  their  theocratic  state?  His  was  the  name  to 
conjure  with.  So  some  one  wrote  this  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, or  almost  the  whole  of  it,  some  eight  hundred 
years  after  Moses  was  dead.  As  one  of  the  Critics 
says:  "The  book  was  certainly  written  about  the 
time  of  its  discovery,"  and  he  adds,  "most  likely  it  was 
written  by  Hilkiah  himself."  In  the  absence,  how- 
ever, of  any  name  of  the  writer  the  Critics  simply  call 
him  the  Deuteronomist,  and  for  short  he  has  been 
adopted  by  them  as  D.  But  the  reforming  party 
"palmed  it  off"  as  Moses'  book.  The  writer  dated  it 
back  to  Moses'  time,  and  was  careful  throughout  to  use 
such  declarations  as  these:  "Moses  said,  Hear,  O 
Israel,  the  statutes  and  judgments  which  I  speak  in 
your  ears  this  day."  "Moses  spake  these  words  unto 
all  Israel."  And  again,  "These  are  the  words  of  the 
covenant  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make 
with  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Moab."  To 
make  the  fraud  still  more  evident,  the  writer,  assum- 
ing all  the  time  to  be  Moses  in  the  wilderness  of  Moab, 
before  the  Jordan  was  crossed,  speaks  of  the  conquest 
of  Canaan  and  the  subjugation  of  the  people  and  the 
destruction  of  their  cities,  as  if  all  this  were  a  thing  of 


14  A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 

the  future  yet  to  be  accomplished  under  Joshua,  al- 
though not  written  until  hundreds  of  years  after  those 
events  had  passed  into  history ! 

Thus  the  book  was  put  in  shape,  the  Critics  tell  us, 
and  was  laid  away  in  the  temple,  ready  to  be  "dis- 
covered" as  a  happy  "find"  when  the  best  opportunity 
should  arrive.  The  opportunity  arrived  as  we  have 
seen,  in  the  coming  of  Shaphan  to  Hilkiah. 

The  Critics  gently  denominate  this  wily  trick  as  a 
"literary  fiction,"  and  they  justify  it,  or  at  least  con- 
done it;  although  some  of  them  are  frank  enough  to 
allow  that  it  cannot  be  defended  from  our  standpoint  of 
morality.  Plain  people,  however,  can  only  see  in  such 
a  procedure  the  stamp  of  fraud.  For  it  is  evident  the 
purpose  was  to  make  it  pass  as  the  genuine  work  of 
Moses.  They  certainly  succeeded,  too.  The  king  and 
the  people  were  deceived.  And  thus,  too,  all  the  suc- 
ceeding Jewish  people  were  deceived — their  rabbis  and 
scholars  and  historians,  the  believers  of  the  days  of 
Jesus  and  his  apostles,  and  the  entire  Christian  world 
likewise,  ever  since,  with  the  exception  of  certain  of 
the  Critics  of  the  last  hundred  and  fifty  years — and 
they  "think  it  strange  that  we  run  not  with  them  to  the 
same  excess  of  riot"  in  conjecture  and  hypothesis. 
They  confess  it  does  not  comport  with  "modern  and 
Western"  ethics  that  a  writing  should  be  attributed 
to  Moses  which  Moses  neither  wrote  nor  could  have 
written.  But  the  difference  between  modern  and 
Western  notions  and  the  notions  which  prevailed  in 
early  Bible  times  makes  it  all  easy!  It  is  certain,  says 
one  of  these  critics  discoursing  on  Deuteronomy,  that 
even  in  this  day  Oriental  writers  of  the  highest  char- 
acter and  of  the  most  burning  zeal  for  religion  would 
act  in  this  manner  without  a  qualm  of  conscience. 
This  we  are  not  concerned  to  deny.  But  we  will  not 
admit  the  moral  parity  of  the  non-Christian  religions 
of  the  East  with  the  religion  of  Israel  which  taught  the 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism  15 

ninth  Commandment,  and  which  forbade  the  circula- 
tion of  a  "false  report,"  and  which  trained  its  followers 
to  say,  "I  hate  every  false  way."  It  would  seem 
fairer  and  less  confusing  if  our  critics  who  thus  gloss 
over  the  practice  of  fraud  and  deceit  would  cease  em- 
ploying the  word  inspiration  as  having  any  special 
meaning  in  relation  to  the  books  of  the  Bible. 

IV. 

Following  the  Covenant  Code  and  the  Deuteronomic 
Code  came  the  Priest  Code.  It  is  contained,  principally, 
in  the  latter  part  of  Exodus  and  throughout  Leviticus 
and  Numbers,  and  is  known  as  P.  in  the  Critics'  nomen- 
clature. It  relates  the  construction  of  the  Tabernacle, 
the  establishment  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood,  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  feasts,  the  regulations  about  clean 
and  unclean,  the  laws  of  sacrifice  and  offerings,  and 
the  whole  minute  ceremonial  system.  Now  all  this  is 
represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  given  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  Moses  "according  to  the  pattern 
shewed  him  in  the  mount,"  and  under  the  direction  of 
God,  as  expressed  in  the  formulae  so  continually  recurring, 
"The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,"  and  "Thus  did  Moses 
according  to  all  that  the  Lord  commanded  him." 

But  the  Critics  will  not  have  it  so.  According  to 
them  Moses  had  no  hand  in  this  Priest  Code.  And  not 
only  did  he  not  introduce  it,  but  he  never  even  con- 
ceived of  such  a  work.  Nor  did  any  one  else  in  that 
age.  It  was  beyond  the  possibility  of  conception  or 
device  in  that  early  period  of  Israel's  development.  It 
was  an  evolution  in  religious  ritual  which  developed 
during,  or  after  the  Exile  in  Babylon,  a  thousand  or 
twelve  hundred  years  subsequent  to  Moses.  The  Tab- 
ernacle, the  Critics  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  was  a  "pure 
fiction."  The  Exodus  tale  of  Bezeleel  and  Aholiab, 
in  whose  hearts  the  Lord  put  wisdom  as  its  artificers, 


16  A   Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism 

they  take  as  a  mere  touch  of  fancy.  And  all  the  his- 
torical setting  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  which  that  structure 
figures,  and  the  Lord's  explicit  directions  to  Moses  con- 
cerning it,  and  the  record  that  reads,  "So  Moses  finished 
the  work" — all  this  counts  for  nothing.  And  yet  fur- 
ther, according  to  the  Critics,  not  only  was  the  Taber- 
nacle never  built  in  Moses'  time,  but  it  was  never  built 
at  all  in  anybody's  time.  It  was  conceived  in  the 
period  of  the  Babylonish  Exile,  written  up  by  some 
unknown  author  as  if  constructed  by  Moses,  and  with- 
out any  objective  reality  whatever  it  remained  as 
nothing  other  than  a  work  of  imagination,  or  an  ideal. 
And  yet  it,  together  with  the  whole  elaborate  Levitical 
system  associated  with  it,  comes  to  us  imbedded  in  all 
the  historical  setting  of  the  Israelites'  career  in  the 
wilderness,  their  tent  life,  their  encampment  according 
to  tribes  around  the  Tabernacle  as  a  common  center, 
their  episodes  of  experience,  their  manna  food,  their 
marchings,  with  the  taking  down  and  putting  up  of  the 
structure,  its  altar,  its  holy  of  holies,  its  shekinah,  the 
pillar  of  cloud  and  the  pillar  of  fire — and  Moses  as  the 
presiding  genius  of  it  all ! 

I  cannot  refrain  from  a  single  question  in  this  connec- 
tion. Had  Moses  never  figured  in  any  literary  or  legis- 
lative work  in  Israel's  early  history  beyond  the  very 
limited  portion  of  Pentateuchal  record  which  the  Critics 
will  allow  him;  had  he  never  been  known  as  the  Law- 
giver in  the  sense  in  which  the  New  Testament  speaks 
when  it  says,  "The  law  came  by  Moses,"  and  had  his 
fame  been  none  other  than  that  of  an  able  and  resource- 
ful Captain  who  had  led  the  people  out  of  Egypt,  and 
during  their  forty  years  of  wilderness  life — then,  I  ask, 
would  his  name  have  carried  such  spell  in  the  work  of 
a  very  different  kind  with  which,  whether  as  a  pious 
fraud  or  a  literary  device,  they  assumed  to  connect  it 
for  its  "taking"  effect?  Lyman  Abbott  says  the  critics 
recognize  in  Moses  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  creative 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism  17 

spirits  of  ancient  history.  But  without  now  asking 
what  historical  data  and  material  they  have  for  their 
very  eulogistic  judgment,  after  stripping  Moses,  as  they 
do,  of  so  much  that  the  records  attribute  to  him,  we 
may  well  question  if  it  was  sagacious  in  the  reformers 
of  King  Josiah's  time,  and  in  those,  subsequently,  who 
sought  to  rehabilitate  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  the 
Jews  after  their  return  from  Babylon,  to  seek  weight  for 
the  new  "Scriptures"  of  those  periods  by  issuing  them 
under  the  name  of  one  who,  while  honored  by  tradition 
in  other  lines  of  exploit,  had  never  figured  in  literature. 
And  would  it  greatly  have  helped  these  writings  to  "go 
down"  with  the  people?  If  Moses'  name  bore  a  spell 
and  a  conjuring  power  in  those  latter  days,  must  it  not 
have  been  principally  for  the  very  same  reason  that  he 
stands  pre-eminent  to-day,  despite  the  Critics,  because 
identified  with  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  with  the  insti- 
tution of  what,  until  this  day  of  the  modern  criticism, 
has  always  been  known  as  the  "Mosaic  Economy?" 

So  have  the  Critics  chosen  to  deal  with  the  three 
codes,  in  a  manner  which  falls  in  with  their  theory  of 
an  evolutionary  progress,  (i)  The  Covenant  Code,  a 
few  simple  ideas  largely  ethical,  as  suggested  by  the 
Commandments,  or  "the  Ten  Words,"  as  they  often 
prefer  to  name  them,  and  which,  in  a  brief  and  rudi- 
mentary form,  they  assign  to  his  hand.  (2)  After  an 
interval  of  eight  hundred  years  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
appeared,  with  stress  laid  on  ethical  features  and  linked 
in  sympathy  with  the  rising  prophetism  of  that  day. 
(Prophetism  became  a  force  in  the  religious  life  of  the 
nation,  the  Critics  claim,  prior  to  the  priest  and  altar 
period,  so  that  the  phrase,  "The  law  and  the  prophets," 
so  frequent  in  the  New  Testament,  must  needs,  chrono- 
logically speaking,  be  inverted  to  read  "the  prophets  and 
the  law.")  (3)  The  Priest  Code,  elaborated  during  the 
period  of  the  exile  and  the  return  to  Jerusalem,  and 
due  largely,  as  the  Critics  say,  to  the  ambition  of  the 


18  A   Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism 

Priest  party  who,  as  the  nation  then  had  no  king  and 
no  civil  supremacy,  aimed  to  make  themselves  the  pre- 
dominant influence. 

V. 

Having  accustomed  themselves  to  such  freedom  and 
arbitrariness  as  respects  the  structure  of  Scripture, 
it  is  not  surprising  to  find  this  class  of  critics  "very 
bold"  in  their  judgments  as  respects  its  authority. 
They  do  not  hesitate  to  discredit  many  of  its  statements 
of  fact,  and  to  regard  as  myths,  legends,  fables,  sagas 
and  poetic  embellishments  very  much  that  Scripture 
presents  as  historical  narrative.  It  is  not  merely  that 
they  treat  one  or  two,  or  three  items  in  early  Genesis  as 
mythical,  but  if  you  question  concerning  other  instances 
throughout  Old  Testament  times,  clear  down  to  the  end 
of  that  dispensation — events  which  in  any  degree  sug- 
gest the  marvelous  or  the  miraculous — you  will  be 
amazed  by  the  large  amount  of  Scripture  which  they 
consign  to  the  same  realm  of  the  legendary  and  the  un- 
historical. 

The  origin  of  man,  the  temptation  scene  in  the  gar- 
den, the  deluge,  the  tower  of  Babel,  the  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  incident,  etc.,  these  they  declare  to  be  myths. 
The  patriarchs,  presented  so  extensively  through  suc- 
cessive generations,  had  no  personal  reality.  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob  never  existed.  They  are  only  names,  and 
nothing  else,  standing  sometimes  for  tribal  designations, 
sometimes  for  personified  virtues.  The  theophanies  they 
regard  as  Oriental  fancies.  Moses  was  a  real  character, 
but  the  narrative  of  his  childhood  in  Egypt,  and  his  sub- 
sequent dealings  with  Pharaoh,  and  much  else  that  is 
related  of  him,  is  largely  imaginary.  And  beyond  the 
bare  fact  that  "the  clan  Jacob"  once  sojourned  in  Egypt, 
and  were  oppressed  and  escaped  in  some  way  to  the 
wilderness  under  the  lead  of  Moses,  there  is  but  little 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism  19 

in  the  tale  which  commands  their  confidence.  The 
books  Joshua  and  Judges,  in  the  view  of  the  Critics, 
abound  in  legend  and  fabulous  folk-lore.  Doubt  is 
thrown  over  the  story  of  the  childhood  and  youth  of 
Samuel.  David  is  ruthlessly  stripped  of  what  they  are 
pleased  to  call  the  "embellishments  of  tradition." 
Prior  to  his  accession  to  the  throne,  they  represent 
him  as  merely  a  rough  "freebooter."  Nor,  after  he 
became  king  can  they  allow  that  he  was  a  nursing 
father  to  the  Israelitish  Church,  nor  a  poet,  nor  a  psalm- 
writer;  and  his  religion  was  of  "the  most  primitive 
type." 

They  see  this  same  legend-building  imagination  in 
the  memoirs  of  Elijah;  and  of  course  the  same  free  hand 
is  shown  in  respect  to  what  George  Adam  Smith  de- 
scribes as  "the  series  of  curious  marvels  attributed  to 
Elisha."  Daniel  had  no  hand  in  the  book  of  that  name. 
Indeed,  according  to  the  Critics,  there  never  was  a 
Daniel,  at  least  as  corresponding  to  the  character  and 
experience  portrayed.  The  Scripture  which  goes  by 
that  name  they  assign  to  as  late  a  date  as  the  second 
century  before  Christ.  The  unknown  author  simply 
transported  himself  in  imagination  back  four  hundred 
years  to  the  alleged  writer's  day,  and  in  an  unbridled  play 
of  fancy  depicted  the  heroism  of  an  imaginary  Daniel, 
and  under  the  guise  of  prediction,  and  representing  it 
as  a  communication  from  "a  God  in  heaven  who  re- 
vealeth  secrets,"  set  forth,  as  pertaining  to  the  history 
of  the  future,  events  which  had  already  come  to  pass. 

All  this  time  it  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  the 
God  of  Israel,  whom  we  call  Jehovah  (whom  many  of 
the  Critics  prefer  to  designate  as  Jahweh),  was  not 
known  by  them  as  the  God  of  the  whole  earth,  the  one 
living  and  true  God,  but  as  a  local  God  only,  whose 
home  had  been  in  the  southern  desert,  and  whom  Moses 
found  when  keeping  Jethro's  flock,  and  who  became 
the  God  of  Israel  in  a  local  sense,  just  as  other  nations 


20  A  Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism 

had  their  gods.  Monotheism,  or  the  doctrine  of  one 
God  only,  was  a  subsequent  development,  and  not 
taking  the  complete  form,  they  tell  us,  until  the  ninth 
century  B.  C. 

With  the  representation  of  modern  criticism,  as  just 
given,  as  also  in  the  preceding  pages  of  this  writing,  the 
question  may  arise  in  some  minds,  Is  it  not  a  too  sweep- 
ing generalization  to  class  all  the  critics  together?  Are 
there  not  conservative  critics  as  well  as  radical?  Yes, 
I  suppose  we  can  distinguish — although  the  word 
"conservative"  has  become  an  indefinite  term,  and  may 
mean  little  or  more,  according  to  the  thought  of  him 
who  raises  the  question.  At  the  same  time  we  have 
to  say,  concerning  the  modern  school,  that  the  so-called 
conservative  critics,  while  not  concurring  in  every 
opinion  of  their  radical  brethren,  and  while  often  show- 
ing an  evangelical  spirit,  and  an  active  sympathy  with 
the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom,  yet  work  with  them  on  the 
same  general  principles  and  methods,  and  reach,  in  the 
main,  the  same  conclusions.  They  are  at  one  with 
them  in  the  view  that  the  Pentateuch,  with  its  three 
codes  of  legislation,  was  composed,  at  various  times, 
from  eight  hundred  to  a  thousand  or  more  years  after 
Moses,  and  that  the  people  were  deluded  by  these 
"sacred  writers,"  representing  all  this  as  the  teaching 
and  the  institutional  work  of  their  early  leader;  that 
very  much  of  what  we  find  in  the  prophetical  books 
was  not  written  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear; 
that  we  have  no  sure  ground  for  believing  the  patriarchs 
were  real  characters;  that  the  records  of  Genesis  prior 
to  Abraham  are  not  history,  and  that  much  else  through- 
out the  Old  Testament  that  appears  as  narrative  is  to 
be  either  eliminated  as  interpolation  or  "late  accretion," 
or  regarded  as  legend  or  mere  poetic  embellishment. 
And  with  all  this,  too,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
certain  of  our  "conservative"  critics  claim  that  the 
Jehovah  of  early  Israel  was  but   "a  tribal  god,"  that 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism  21 

they  looked  to  him  "as  the  Moabites  looked  to  Chemosh," 
and  that  it  was  late  in  their  history  before  "the  reality 
of  other  gods  died  out."* 

Those  whom  we  may  call  the  Evangelical  critics  hold 
in  their  hearts  the  worshipful  view  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
are  the  sincere  followers  of  the  Lord.  But  we  must 
not  forget  to  what  degree  this  may  be  owing  to  the 
spiritual  apprehensions  which  became  fixed  in  their 
youth  and  during  the  first  years  of  their  pulpit  min- 
istry, before  their  intellectual  and  speculative  accept- 
ance of  what  they  call  the  "modern  view  of  the  Bible." 
Under  these  earlier  convictions  their  experience  took 
form.  That  type,  and  the  momentum,  as  we  may 
call  it,  of  past  years  of  ingrained  religious  experience, 
and  the  early  influence  of  God's  word  upon  them,  de- 
spite the  fact  that  their  present  theories  tend  to  discredit 
that  word — this  holds  them  personally  beyond  the 
influence  of  their  erroneous  speculations  to  dislodge. 
But  when  we  think  of  the  younger  generation  of  pupils 
encamping,  it  may  be,  at  the  outset  on  the  Critics' 
ground  without  having  been  first  for  long  years,  and 
during  the  formative  period  of  life,  under  the  undis- 
turbed sway  (as  these  older  scholars  and  professors  more 
fortunately  had  been)  of  teachings  which  acknowledge 
the  Scripture  throughout,  "not  as, the  word  of  men  but 
as  it  is,  in  truth,  the  word  of  God" — when  we  think 
of  this  we  fear  we  are  soon  to  see  many  who  "concern- 
ing the  faith  have  made  shipwreck." 

VI. 

Suppose  the  critics  whom  we  have  been  considering  are 
right  in  their  treatment  of  the  Bible — then  what  ?  Where 
are  we  in  that  event  ?     What  would  be  the  status  of  our 


*  George  Adam  Smith — who  also  attributes  largely  to  Assyria  the  rise  in  Israel  of  the 
belief  in  Jehovah  as  the  one  God.  By  shattering  the  tribes  and  impressing  the  idea  of 
unity  in  government,  that  Empire  shattered  the  Semitic  theory  of  religion — "a  god  for 
every  tribe  and  a  tribe  for  every  god."  The  field  was  cleared  of  the  many:  there  was  room 
for  the  One. 


22  A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 

Book,  and  what  its  power  in  the  world?  What  the 
effect  on  the  faith  of  the  thousands  of  plain  believers? 
Suppose  it  be  drilled  into  the  people  that  Scripture 
narratives  by  the  score,  which  from  childhood  they 
have  regarded  as  veritable,  are  but  "cunningly-devised 
fables,"  some  of  them  of  The  Jack  and  the  Beanstalk 
order,  and  others,  as  figuring  in  a  more  important  rela- 
tion, elevated  to  the  Romulus  and  Remus  order  of  myth ; 
that  Abraham  and  the  other  patriarchs,  whom  they  have 
looked  upon  as  the  beginning  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
the  earth,  were  but  names,  and  never  had  personal 
existence ;  that  throughout  the  book  on  the  part  of  those 
who,  for  ages  past,  have  been  denominated  "sacred 
writers,"  and  speaking  with  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord" 
on  their  lips,  there  are  mistakes,  misrepresentations,  per- 
version of  facts,  fraudulent  literary  methods,  ill-assorted 
and  disjointed  arrangement  of  material;  that  super- 
naturalism,  in  its  common  meaning,  is  gone,  and  that 
events  of  history,  recorded  as  if  foretold  by  prophets  in 
advance  of  their  development,,  were  written  after  their 
occurrence,  and  inserted,  as  Professor  Cheyne  does  not 
hesitate  to  say,  "after  history  had  sharpened  the  eye  of 
the  prophet!"  (As  he  also  so  naively  remarks,  "How 
easy  for  a  prophet  or  his  editor  to  manufacture  predic- 
tions after  the  event"!)*  That  the  Passover,  which  the 
New  Testament  associates  with  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
and  the  "blood  of  sprinkling,"  the  story  of  Mount  Sinai 
and  the  giving  of  the  law,  the  appointment  of  the 
priesthood  and  the  system  of  sacrifices  and  the  Levitical 
order,  and  the  Tabernacle  structure,  with  its  intricate 
paraphernalia — all  which  things  are   assumed  as  true 


To  somewhat  like  effect  we  have  George  Adam  Smith,  in  his  'Book  of  the  Twelve 
Prophets,"  saying:  "We  shall  find  that  hands  have  been  busy  with  the  text  of  the  books 
long  after  the  authors  of  these  must  have  passed  away  *  *  *  passages  that  are  evi- 
dently intrusions,  *  *  *  reflecting  a  much  later  environment  than  their  contents.' 
And,  again:  "The  Prophetic  books  contain  numerous  signs  that  later  generations  wove 
their  own  brighter  hopes  into  the  abrupt  and  hopeless  conclusions  of  prophecies  of 
judgment." 


A  Glance  at  the  Higher   Criticism  23 

by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  which,  especially,  are  so 
interwoven  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews — that  these 
are  but  literary  figments! 

In  our  survey  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  the  Old 
Testament.  But  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  are 
all  of  one.  This  destructive  criticism  will  prove  itself 
impartial  in  its  visitations.  It  has  its  eye  now  on  the 
New  Testament.  Indeed,  it  has  already  made  incur- 
sions and  preliminary  sorties  in  that  territory,  laying 
down,  as  its  lines,  such  postulates  as  these:  No  pre- 
existent  state  to  be  claimed  for  Jesus  Christ  prior  to  his 
birth  at  Bethlehem;  that  birth  only  after  the  manner 
of  ordinary  generation,  and  "conceived  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary"  as 
much  a  myth  as  with  them  is  the  story  of  Eve  formed 
out  of  Adam;  Christ  having  divinity  of  nature  only  as 
we  all  have  it  (in  degree,  of  course,  less  than  his,  but  not 
differing  in  kind) ;  his  mental  constitution  such  that  we 
must  predicate  of  it  human  limitations  and  defective 
knowledge,  and  the  liability  to  mistakes;  his  miracles 
resolved  into  mist;  his  cross  eviscerated  of  all  sacrificial 
significance,  and  his  resurrection  explained  away.  Here 
then  is  the  question,  in  case  such  a  conception  of  the 
Bible  should  prevail — how  long  would  the  book  retain 
its  hold  in  any  pre-eminent  degree  upon  the  mind  and 
conscience  of  men?  And  in  what  reasonable  sense 
could  we  continue  to  call  it  the  Word  of  God?  Our 
philologists  who  revel  in  linguistic  and  textual  forms,  our 
scholars  who  have  a  literary  interest  in  ancient  lore  and 
in  the  comparative  study  of  early  religions,  and  our 
philosophical  moralists  who  enjoy  tracing  the  evolution 
of  ethical  ideas — these  would  still  feel  the  intellectual 
fascination  of  the  book.  But  for  those  whose  interest 
in  it  is  of  a  more  practical  and  personal  kind — for  the 
plain  and  humble  reader  who  takes  it  as  true,  first  of  all 
because  he  takes  it  as  from  God;  for  those,  wanderers 
from  God,  it  may  be,  but  in  whose  hearts  there  still 


24  A  Glance  at  the  Higher  Criticism 

linger  the  childhood  impression  of  its  sanctity  and  the 
charm  of  its  tales  and  wonders  which  are  associated  in 
memory  with  a  mother's  tender  voice  as  she  read  to  her 
little  ones;  and  for  those  men  of  affairs  in  the  busy 
world,  often  thoughtful  about  higher  things,  but  to 
whom  the  Critics'  recommendation  of  the  "Bible  as 
literature,"  and  as  "a  unique  book"  will  make  little 
appeal — alas,  for  these,  Scripture  will  have  lost  forever 
its  divine  character,  and  will  have  forfeited  its  impera- 
tive right  of  way  in  the  domain  of  faith  and  conscience. 


^S:-&^mW^^-^^^    :• 


DATE  DUE 

DEMCO  38-297 

Oay/ora 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

ZZ^T    Syracuse,  N.   Y. 

Stockton,  Calif. 


UtllVAA  11 


